Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Houthi rebels in Yemen accepted a UN-brokered peace deal after
capturing much of the capital Sanaa. The deal will require disarmament
and withdrawal from areas they seized recently.

The deal was
signed by the Shiite rebels along with political rivals the Islah party
linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, with other parties signing as well.
The Houthis appear to be the strongest force in the capital Sanaa. They
have thousands of fighters in the city, man checkpoints, and are well
supplied with weapons seized from army barracks. The Houthis may be
reluctant to give up their present power status. While the Shiite
Houthis are a minority among the Sunni majority in Yemen as a whole,
they are a majority in their strongholds in the north. However,
separatist rebels in the south also oppose the central government.
Even while the deal was being signed some Houthi fighters fought
with security guards at the house of the national security chief
Ali-Ahmadi. Two Houthi fighters were killed in the fighting. Al-Ahmadi
is in charge of the security apparatus that coordinates attacks on
Al-Qaida with the US. The Houthis were apparently trying to storm the
house.
The US embassy told US citizens to leave Yemen because of the security
situation just a day ago. Government staff have been reduced at the
embassy. The Yemeni president and staunch US ally Mansour Hadi claimed
that Yemen could be heading for civil war.
On Saturday a rocket attack
was launched against special police guarding the US embassy in Sanaa.
The attack was said to be in retaliation for a US drone strike on Friday
in the north of Yemen. Ansar al_Sharia, affiliated
with Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula(AQAP) claimed responsibility for
the attack. The rocket hit about 200 meters from the embassy and
injured at least two of the special police guarding the facility. Tribal
sources confirmed that 2 Al-Qaeda members were killed in a drone strike
in Al Jawf, Friday, and some children were reported wounded.
Another attack in the capital targeted an armored vehicle of security
guards who were protecting a building rented by the US embassy. A man
fired a portable missile from a motorcycle. It caused a large explosion
but no one was injured.
US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said:
"We are aware of an attack with an assault weapon in Sanaa today. We
have no indication that the U.S. Embassy was the target of the attack,"
The US Embassy in Sanaa has been the target in the past of AQAP operations.
The US provides training for Yemeni counter-terrorism forces and
also carries out drone strikes again suspected militants. He is strongly
supported by President Hadi even though there is considerable
opposition among the population. Many Yemenis are angry that Yemeni
citizens in Guantanamo have not been released back to Yemen. The
president sides with the protesters on this issue.
The Houthis have
agreed to join the fight against Al Qaeda although they do not support
US drone strikes. The agreement will give Houthis some executive power
as the president will name an adviser from the group and another from
the southern separatist movement which is also a challenge to the
central government. A new government is to be formed within a month. So
far the Houthis have not agreed on who should be the new prime minister.
The appended video discusses the chances of the peace deal holding.

Entomophagy the consumption of "bugs," may become much more prevalent in
the future especially to supply protein and ensure that a food supply
is available for the world's growing population.

In a video here a
University of British Columbia(UBC) researcher suggests that bugs could
be a common source of protein in the future. Yasmin Akhtar, is a
Research Associate in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the UBC.
She discusses what the future of entomophagy might be with CBC reporter
Deborah Goble. Bugs typically contain many vitamins and minerals as well
as protein.
Eating of insects is hardly new. The practice dates back to
prehistoric times. Not only adult insects have been eaten but also the
eggs, larvae, and pupae of insects. Many animals other than humans eat
insects and even some plants live on them. While many in the west may be
revolted at the very idea of eating insects, there are over 1,000
species of insects known to be eaten in 80 percent of the countries in
the world. While in the developed world the taste for insects is
limited, they are still popular as a food in many developing countries
of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Some "bugs" that are eaten, such as
spiders and centipedes, are not really insects but usually counted as
examples of entomorphagy. Crickets, grasshoppers, ants, meal-worms, and
caterpillars are popular edible insects but scorpions and tarantulas are
also eaten.
While the market for food produced from insects is limited in countries such as the U.S., nevertheless there is a US company
All Things Bugs that manufactures and sells cricket powder which is
used in protein bars, and baked goods. Studies show that the most likely
group to adopt insects as a meat substitute are young males who have no
strong attachment to meat and are open to novel foods particularly if
their consumption would be positive for the environment.
There are two places in Vancouver, Canada, that offer cricket-based food items. One restaurant has parathas,
a type of flat bread, made from roasted crickets that are ground to
make a flour. The other restaurant offers pizza that has whole roasted
crickets sprinkled on naan dough a type of flat bread dough.
The UN released a publication titled "Edible insects-Future prospects for food and feed security" in 2013 at the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition.
The paper discusses the opportunities for farming insects for food and
feed, as well as research on the nutritional value of food from insects,
as well as ways of processing and preserving foods made from insects.
Perhaps by 2050 entomophagy will be trending even in the United States
and Canada.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Hundreds of Taliban attacked the Ajrestan District of Ghazni province a
key link between the capital Kabul and southern areas. The Taliban have
also been making advances in the south recently.

Some 700 Taliban
are said to be involved in the battle which has lasted about a week
already. Although fighting is still continuing, there have been over 100
killed and the Afghan forces have been pushed back giving the Taliban
effective control over the area. The highway through the area links
Kabul to the main southern city of Kandahar.
Provincial officials say
they have lost all contact with police in the area. NATO has attempted
to allow the Afghan military to counter Taliban attacks of late with the
result that the Taliban are making gains in the south and central areas
of Afghanistan.
Earlier,
Taliban had attacked a government compound in the area containing
intelligence and police offices killing at least 8 security personnel
and losing 19 of their own fighters. Deputy police chief of
the Ajrestan area Asadullah Safi said on Friday: "If there is no urgent
help from the central government, the district will collapse". The
authorities have lost contact with Safi. With no air cover to pin down
the Taliban attackers the Taliban have launched many attacks against
military posts.
Provincial officials were able to contact an army unit late Friday.
The unit reported that fighting was still raging and that Afghan army
commandos from outside Ghazni province had arrived as reinforcement.Ajrestan is
a small town but surrounded by about 100 villages. Control of the
mountainous Ajrestan district that is about 125 miles southwest of Kabul
will provide the Taliban a base to launch attacks on two bordering
provinces and along the crucial highway as well. Provincial governor
Ahmadi said that he had asked repeatedly for helicopters to evacuate
wounded security forces but to no avail.Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, leader of the ethnic Hazara minority said:
"Peace with the Taliban requires a strong government. At the moment,
the Taliban think they can fight in every province and they believe they
can overthrow the government, Without international support it will be
hard to provide security ... The example of Ajrestan district shows that
without international commitment of troops, it will be difficult to
handle the Taliban."These attacks
come just days before the new Afghan president Ashraf Ghani is to be
inaugurated in a unity deal with his opponent Abdullah Abdullah. All
foreign troops are set to withdraw by the end of 2014 but the new
president has promised that he will sign on to a bilateral security
agreement that will allow some troops to remain after that time. The
control of the battle against the Taliban already seems to be mainly by
the Afghan government.
Afghan officials claim
that the continuing loses by their forces show that a peace settlement
must be negotiated with the Taliban since without a powerful NATO
occupation force they will be unable to defeat the Taliban in battle.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

A common narrative about what is happening in Libya will be about the
threat of radical Islamist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, a group
thought to be responsible for the attack on the American consul in
Benghazi which killed the ambassador among others.

Reuters has
an article on the issue noting that a group of countries mostly Western
and Arab state expressed readiness to help Libya's government confront
"a growing presence of Islamic militant groups in the North African
country." The entire narrative of what has happened fails to mention
CIA-linked General Khalifa Haftar, Operation Dignity or his own attacks
that started the present confrontation. Nor does the article mention
that Haftar allies attacked and burned the Libyan parliament and
kidnapped Islamist officials and legislators. The threat is apparently
only from Islamist-linked militia. This is not so much news reporting as
it is propaganda that ensures the public does not understand the
context of what is happening. This is framing that will place discussion
of what is happening in Libya in the appropriate context to justify
foreign intervention.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
held a high-level meeting on the sidelines during a session of the
General Assembly. The group discussed the situation in Libya. A summary of the meeting said: "The
meeting recognized the lead role of the government of Libya in
addressing the growing threat of terrorist groups, and the readiness to
support the government in this regard,"
France, Britain, the United Staes, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were all at the meeting. The Reuters article stresses the issue of Ansar al-Sharia: Western
countries are particularly concerned by the presence of Islamist
militant group Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, which the United States blames
for killing its ambassador and three other Americans in 2012 and
classifies as a terrorist organisation. While the group is active in
Benghazi, even there it is simply part of a larger umbrella
organization of mostly Islamist militias who control most of Benghazi.
In the capital, other groups such as the Misrata militia play a major
role but again as part of a larger umbrella organization containing
numerous groups.France has been taking the lead in urging international intervention. Laurent Fabius said at the UN meeting: "The
efforts that are being used to fight Daesh (Islamic State) to limit the
movements of foreign fighters and financing should also be used for
these groups, We know there are groups on the south and east of Libya,
and these, let's be realistic, will not be automatically neutralized
just because, as we hope, there is a reconciliation in Libya. Of course
the reconciliation is necessary but if we want Libyan forces to do what
is necessary towards these terrorist groups, they need to be united. But
we all know that other measures will need to be taken."
However, these groups are part of much larger umbrella groups of
militia who are not going to abandon militant groups simply because
France, the US, and others consider them terrorists. Any move against
them by foreign forces will simply unite the opposition that already
controls Tripoli and Benghazi against foreign interference.
All this talk about intervention is itself strange since just over a week ago the recognized Libyan government in Tobruk along with 15 other countries came out against any foreign intervention at a meeting in Madrid Spain: Libya's
struggling elected government and representatives of 15 neighbouring
nations have unanimously rejected the idea of military intervention as a
way to restore stability in the oil-rich North African nation, which
some say is on the brink of civil war. The group claimed that there
was no military solution to the crisis.
There has already been foreign
intervention in the form of night airstrikes on Islamist positions in
Tripoli. General Haftar claimed that they were a joint operation
involving his forces and the international community. The rebels claimed
the UAE and Egypt were involved in the attacks as did the US. However,
neither country accepted responsibility. The US later decided that it
should take back its accusation against the UAE and Egypt.
The government in Tobruk does
not hold the UAE or Egypt responsible either, nor does the Libyan
ambassador to the UN. The Libyan government, the UN, and all those
countries who reject foreign intervention as a solution to Libya's
problem have all fallen silent. Perhaps Reuters will do an investigative
report. Meanwhile the Libyan government has a space problem in Tobruk: (Funny
sidelight: Tobruk, being a fairly small place, doesn’t have sufficient
accommodations for all the HoR legislators and bureaucrats, so they
leased a Greek car ferry, the Elyros, to live on. Now the ship’s owner
wants his ship back and has demanded that they leave. As of this date,
they have refused to disembark.)

Reverend Earl Baldwin Jr. has filed a lawsuit against Pittsburgh police
after they are alleged to have restrained and tased him while he claims
he was praying for his stepson Mileek Grissom in a hospital emergency
room.

Baldwin explained on local station WPSI: “I needed to tell him his family was going to be OK. I was going to do everything I could to make sure they were OK.”
The appended video from a camera in the hospital shows Baldwin with
several officers surrounding him. The officers can be seen trying to
pull him away from his son and shooting him in the back with a taser.
The attendant officers claim that Baldwin was interfering with attempts
by doctors to revive Grissom. However, the attorney for the family said
that Grissom was dead at the time of the incident and was not being
treated. Grissom's mother was denied entry into the hospital at the time
of the incident.
The hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), issued a statement counter to Baldwin's claims: “Clearly
this was a stressful situation and a tragic loss for this family.
However, the allegations about the circumstances are inaccurate.”Grissom died from a gunshot wound after he attempted to break up a fight. The incident happened over two years ago on June 24 2012. Baldwin and his family had been campaigning in Pittsburgh against gun violence in Pittsburgh for the last two years. Baldwin had said: Mileek
is not going to die, and we not do something about it. So today, I
stand here before you all and I tell you all, I'm going to fight."
Baldwin's federal lawsuit claims the police illegally used the taser
on him while he was praying over the body of his son. To counter the
hospital and police version of events Baldwin's attorney Joel Sassone claimed: “Watch the video. Not only was the child not being treated, the child was dead.”
Grissom was 23 years old. Baldwin claims that the police slid his son
out of the way so they could get at him, and then jumped on top of him
as he was attempting to pay his regards to his dead son.

The Islamic State(IS) has captured territory held by other rebel groups
and fought against them. Surely the rebels should welcome the strikes.
However, the strikes were directed not only against IS but other radical
rebel groups as well.

The US bombing attacks also
targeted Jabhat al-Nusra(JaN), an Al-Qaeda-linked radical group but one
that has mostly fought in cooperation with the FSA and other rebel
groups such as the Islamic Front. There are reports that the bombing
attacks were directed also at Ahrar al-Sham in the Aleppo area. The
group is not linked to Al-Qaeda at all and operates in tandem with the
Free Syrian Army that is supported by the west.
One US official explained: "We're characterizing our targets as Khorasan and ISIS but its possible others were there. It is a toxic soup of terrorists".Khorasan is
a jihadist group that has migrated to Syria. It is associated with Al
Qaeda and apparently includes a bomb-maker from Yemen. It hopes to hit
targets in the west. James Clapper, Director of US National Intelligence
claims that "in terms of threat to the homeland Khorasan may pose as
much of a danger as the Islamic State (IS)".
While attacking the Nusra
Front and Khorasan mayl seem quite reasonable from the point of view of
the US war against terror, it makes no sense to Syrian rebels. Just when
the rebels need all the help they can get against the Assad regime, the
US actions appear to help him out in key areas such as Aleppo where the
rebels are already having difficulties holding their ground and radical
groups are an important fighting force.
The US has claimed that it was bombing the Islamic State in Syria but
instead it is attacking any radical rebel group that it does not like
even though those groups are helping the Free Syrian army and other
rebels against Assad.
The bombings are cheered on by the Asssad regime
which originally opposed them as violations of its sovereignty and
against international law. Syrian minister for national reconciliation, Ali Haidar, praised the attacks although Syria was still watching developments with caution: "As
for the raids in Syria, I say that what has happened so far is
proceeding in the right direction in terms of informing the Syrian
government and by not targeting Syrian military installations and not
targeting civilians.Notification of the Syrian government happened.
Confirmation that they would not target Syrian military installations,
and confirmation they would not target civilians happened." Civilians are not typically targeted in any event but are just collateral damage.
Rebel groups of all stripes condemned the bombings. The Syrian
Revolutionaries Front, a major secular coalition in the north-west of
Syria that drove ISIS out of Idlib in January along with other rebel
groups condemned the bombings
claiming:"You help Bashar" Although bombing strikes targeted Idlib
there are no IS forces there any more. One of the first condemnations of
the strikes was by Harak Hazm an FSA militia operating mostly in Hama and numbering about 7,000:“The
Hazem Movement rejects the external intervention of the US Coalition,
which launched its first airstrikes on Tuesday in the governorates of
Deir el Zour, Raqqa, al Hasaka, Aleppo, Idlib and Homs, with 11
civilians killed in rural Idlib province and five others in rural Homs
province, as well as fighters from Jabhat al Nusra and the ISIS.These
air attacks amount to *an attack on national sovereignty* and work to
*undermine the Syrian revolution...We of the Hazem Movement hereby
reaffirm our full commitment to the principles of the revolution, and
emphasize that *our actions are guided solely by revolutionary
principles and national interest, not by the demands of the
international coalition...The only beneficiaries from the US coalition’s
military intervention will be the Assad regime,.."
There have been
demonstrations against the bombings in many rebel areas. While many are
in support of the Nusra Front there are others which even express
sympathy with the Islamic State: The enclosed You Tube video shows
damage in bombings of Al Nusra Front positions:
The only clear support for
the bombings among rebel groups was the group supported by the west and
Gulf state the Syrian Opposition Coalition(SOC) and the Supreme
Military Command(SMC). The latter group supported "all earnest national
forces and free international forces who are fighting terrorism but said
that this should begin with attacking "the Assad Gang" whom the group
claimed created the Islamic State.
The aim of the US may to be to weaken or eliminate rebel groups it
does not favor even though they are fighting cooperatively along with
other rebel groups against Assad. The type of force that they will train
will play the role of the Sons of Iraq
in Iraq who were paid by the US government to fight against Al Qaeda in
Iraq. This worked as long as the US continued to foot the bill. It may
not work in Syria. The main rebel groups see radicals as allies as long
as they work together against Assad. Destroying rebel's allies will not
win any friends among the majority of the rebels even moderates.
The ultimate aim of US policy may not be to defeat the Assad regime but
to create a situation where there are more pro-western moderate rebels
but who will be willing to negotiate with a war-weary and weakened Assad
regime. Assad will be convinced to step aside and there will be a
political settlement with the new government committed to fighting
radical jihadists throughout Syria. Much of the material in this article
derives from a long and very interesting article plus many links by Michael Karadjis from the University of Western Sydney to be found here.

China has been careful in its responses to the Ukrainian situation.
While it wants to retain Russia as an ally it is concerned that the
Crimea referendum could set a precedent for areas such as Tibet, which
is part of China.

The European Union has
threatened Russia with further sanctions after Russia was accused of
sending troops into Ukraine to help separatists in their battle with
Ukrainian forces. There are divisions among European leaders and it is
not clear when any further sanctions might come into effect.
Spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Qin Gang, said:
"A political solution is the only way out, sanctions do not help to
solve the underlying problems in Ukraine. It may lead to new and more
complicating factors." China has said also that it respects
Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and wants
to develop friendly relations with it.
In a joint statement
released during an official visit of Russian president Vladimir Putin
to China both countries rejected the use of sanctions as political
tools. As well the two condemned attempts to "encourage and finance"
regime change a clear swipe at US actions in Ukraine and elsewhere to
ensure election of pro-western regimes in countries around the periphery
of Russia.
Sanctions by the west have encouraged Russia to turn east and in
particular to grow business and trade with China. The two countries have
already signed numerous, energy and business deals. The joint
statement promised " a new stage in full-scale partnership and strategic
relations". The two countries agreed to coordinate foreign policy where
they have common priorities. President Putin said: “We
have common priorities on a global and on a regional scale. We’ve
agreed upon closer coordination of our foreign policy steps, including
those in the UN, BRICS and APEC"
Both countries oppose attempts by the US and EU to impose sanctions. The joint statement said: “The
parties stress the necessity to… reject unilateral sanctions
rhetoric.Economic restrictions applied as punishment are no better than
financial aid to forces that seek “a change in constitutional system of
another country,” Russia has accused the US of spending $5 billion to promote regime change in the Ukraine.Valentina Matviyenko,
speaker of the upper house of the Russian parliament also noted China's
objections to sanctions against Russia. She said that both Russia and
China believe that the sanctions are an attempt "to exert pressure on
sovereign states to change their position and to weaken them and
suppress their development." She thanked China for taking a public
position in opposition to the western sanctions imposed upon Moscow. She
noted also that Moscow and Beijing shared many common positions on a
number of global issues.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Stephen Hayes is an unlikely candidate to be on the Department of
Homeland Security's Terrorist Watchlist. As a senior writer for the
conservative Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on Fox news he
seems an unlikely terrorist sympathizer.

Hayes,
as well as contributing to conservative media, has been on CNN, MSNBC,
CNBC, even C-Span as well. His conservative neo-con credentials include
being picked as the official biographer of former vice-president Dick
Cheney.
The Weekly Standard
could be called the home base of the neo-cons. The Weekly Standard has
never made money but depended upon subsidies from prominent
conservatives and the owner billionaire media magnate Rupert Murdoch until 2009 when it was sold to the Clarity Media Group. That company is also owned by a billionaire entrepreneur Philip Anschutz
ranked by Forbes at 38th richest person in the US worth about $11
billion in 2014. Murdoch claimed he was not interested in selling the
Weekly Standard but after he purchased the Wall Street Journal he seemed
less interested in the Standard. Since the Anschutz group has taken
over paid subscriptions are said to have increased by 39 percent between
2009 and 2010.
The Standard is described in Wikipedia: The
Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine
published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation,
debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder
William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a
"redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible."
Given Hayes' stellar credentials as being a bona fide conservative
rather than a potential terrorist how is it that he ended up on a DHS
terror watch list? Apparently, it is easy to get on the list. Hayes' big
mistake was to buy a one way ticket to Turkey. Everyone should know
that the DHS probably thinks that anyone who buys a one way ticket to
Turkey is on the way to join the Islamic State or the Nusra Front rebels
in Syria. Both groups are on the US terror list.
Hayes' describes his
experiences in a podcast at the Weekly Standard.
Hayes and his wife booked a one-way trip to Istanbul. However, they
then went on a cruise and ended up in Athens. They flew back to the US
from Athens. Hayes thinks that his being placed on the watch list
resulted from his purchase of the one-way ticket to Istanbul. He told
POLITICO: "I'd be concerned if it was anything more than that." I find
it strange that he is not concerned about that. Should buying a one-way
ticket to Turkey be sufficient grounds for placing a person on a terror
watch list? There could be countless reasons for buying a one-way ticket
to Turkey as his own case shows. Hayes describes what happened when he tried to check in for a flight from Minneapolis a few weeks later: "When
I went online to check in with Southwest, they wouldn't let me. I
figured it was some glitch. Then I got to the airport and went to check
in. The woman had a concerned look on her face. She brought over her
supervisor and a few other people. Then they shut down the lane I was
in, took me to the side, told me I was a selectee and scrawled
[something] on my ticket. On my way back. the same thing happened. I got
pulled out, they closed down the lane, and did a full pat-down and
looked in all parts of my luggage."
Hayes later contacted Southwest. A customer service representative told
him he was on the watch list.
At the time Hayes talked to POLITICO he
was attempting to fill out forms on the DHS website in an attempt to
clear his name. He is finding out that the process has built in snags. Hayes reports:
"Not surprisingly, it's confusing. The first time I did it, the whole
site froze. Now it's asking me for my passport number and a bunch of
other information. Then I think I'm supposed to submit an actual copy of
my passport, which I obviously can't do electronically."
Perhaps some enterprising terrorist came across the biography of
Stephen Hayes and decided that "Stephen Hayes" would make a great alias
and now the rest is history with Hayes being the victim. Then again,
maybe this is all Obama's fault along with everything else bad that
happens. Actually, in this case, Obama may be partly to blame since both
the no-fly list and watchlist have expanded during his time in office.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

If the US war against the Islamic State were a
social program there would be immediate requests for an estimate of the
costs. If the duration and extent of the program was indefinite
criticism would be immediate and harsh.

With respect to the Obama long term program to
degrade and eliminate the Islamic State, costs appear to be irrelevant
and in any case not worthy of discussing. We have no idea how long the
attacks on the Islamic State will last nor the extent of the program but
even now the attacks have extended from Iraq into Syria. While Obama so
far has ruled out any boots on the ground, he has already sent about
1,500 special forces to Iraq. Apparently they do not count as boots on
the ground.The White House refuses to even estimate how much the war has cost up to now let alone what it might cost in the future. When press secretary Josh Earnest was pressed on the cost issue he said: “I
don’t have an estimate on that. I know that we’re interested in having
an open dialogue with Congress to ensure that our military has the
resources necessary to carry out the mission that the president has laid
out.”
There is no budget for the war. Up to now, the US has been paying for
the air attacks from the Overseas Contingency Operations budget. There
is $85 billion in that budget but who knows how long that will last. The
last US Iraq War had
a total cost of over $2 trillion. While so far this new war has
relatively few US forces present on the ground, over time with continued
bombings and no doubt many contractors helping out with various tasks
the bill could add up.
Last month, Rear Admiral John Kirby told
reporters the Iraq operations were costing about $7.5 million a day but
no doubt that has increased considerably by now. Already the US has
made over 170 airstrikes and there are about 60 surveillance flights
each day.
Unlike the first Iraq war, this new one will use mostly proxy troops
such as Iraqi security forces and Kurdish peshmerga. In Syria the
proxies will also be Kurds as well as many rebel groups who have clashed
with the Islamic State. Obama has requested funds to train and arm more
"moderate" rebels even though the weapons may end up in the hands of
the Islamic State The tactic of using proxy troops will minimize
casualties among Americans that might cause negative political reactions
on the home front. However, Obama has made it clear that the fight
against the Islamic Front will be long term. So will the costs.
As was the case with the first Iraq War the US will try form a
coalition of allies to share the cost of the battle. More than 40
countries have already pledged support for efforts to curb and destroy
the Islamic State. France has already joined air strikes in Iraq and
several Arab States joined in an attack on the Islamic State in Syria.
Just last week, Obama again emphasized that he was not about to get the US involved in a ground war in Syria saying on TV: “American forces will not have a com Abat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”Army Gen. Martin Dempsey,
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however revealed that on at
least one occasion small teams of US advisers have gone into battle with
Iraqi troops. He also noted that if circumstances changed, Obama could
change his mind about sending in US troops.
So far, Obama has not sought congressional authority for his air
strikes even in Syria where Assad has not given permission. The attacks
are seen by Assad and Russia as against international law. White House
spokesperson Earnest said that Obama "will not hesitate to use his
authority to keep Americans safe". He went on
to claim that the contemplated attacks in Syria were not against the
Assad regime: “What we're talking about now is not about the Assad
regime, but about this threat that's posed by [ISIS] that's operating
both in Iraq and in Syra". This does not change the fact that the attack
is on Syrian territory without the permission of the Syrian government.
No doubt the air strikes will help slow down if not reverse Islamic
State advances, although in northern Syria in the last few days, the
group has made significant gains of territory sparking a huge flood of
refugees into Turkey. Air strikes have hit the main Islamic State held
city and stronghold of Raqqa in Syria. Such strikes are almost bound to kill
civilians and cause a great deal of damage to infrastructure. The same
can be said of attacks on Iraqi cities. Just as many locals in Iraq
prefer the Islamic State to the Shiite-dominated central government so
in Syria many locals may prefer the Islamic State to Assad.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Rival candidates Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani were said to be
close to a power-sharing agreement back on Tuesday Sept. 16 but talks
stalled in part because the two could not agree when the results of
final vote audit should be released.

Abdullah does not want the results as they now stand
made public.Those results are widely thought to show him losing by a
considerable margin even though he led by a good margin in the first
vote before the runoff. Both Abdullah and Ghani had assured their
western backers that they would support a deal brokered by US Secretary
of State John Kerry. There would be a complete audit of all the votes
cast and the formation of a unity government that would see the loser
given a new chief executive position.
The latest report from the Los Angeles Times
indicated that the two rival candidates finally reached a deal
yesterday September 19 on the formation of a unity government, even
though they still have divisions over the final results. The two
candidates also had difficulties defining the powers of the new post of
chief executive. The reports of an agreement may be a bit premature
since aides to both Ghani and Abdullah claimed that the two had not yet
agreed on the result of the audit of the all 8 million votes cast in the
June runoff. Abdullah claims that massive fraud allowed Ghani to win.
The Afghan Independent Election Commission is set to announce the
results of the election on Saturday afternoon according to one source but the next day Sunday according to another. Ghani is expected to win by a comfortable margin.
Not only Abdullah, but Ghani also had objections to some aspects of a
proposed agreement which would see the president along with the chief
executive together form the government. Ghani said that
this would remove powers from the president granted by the Afghan
constitution.
No matter who wins the presidency both rivals have
promised that they would sign a bilateral security agreement with the US
that has already been passed by the Afghan parliament. It would allow
the US to keep up to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after the present
agreement ends at the end of 2014. The US is anxious to have the
agreement signed as soon as possible.
Abdulllah Abdullah represents northern groups and power brokers while
Ghani has the support of many in the Pashtun majority in the south and
east of Pakistan. Ghani is a former World Bank official and finance
minister and has the support of Karzai. Abdullah is a former foreign
minister.
There has been enormous pressure from the US and others for a
deal to be made. Even if Abdullah agrees to a deal, some of his
supporters may not accept the results of the audit assuming Abdullah is
the loser. However, Nasrullah Arsalai, an Abdullah campaign manager said both rivals need to compromise:
They need to be responsible, act responsibly. This is not about Dr.
Ghani and Dr. Abdullah. This is about Afghanistan. This is about the
interest of our allies. This is about all the efforts of these 13 years.
This is all about the sacrifices of Afghans and our allies have made.
For that reason they need to be responsible."

The Obama administration has explained why it
thinks it has the legal authority to bomb IS in Iraq and Syria although
many doubt whether the justifications are sound. No justification has
yet been been given for the attacks under international law,.

Obama argues
that the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed
after 9/11 to allow military action against Al Qaeda and those linked to
the 9/11 attacks gives him the required authorization to use military
forces against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. However,. Al Qaeda
has disowned the Islamic State(IS) and IS has even fought against the
group recognized by Al Qaeda in Syria the Al-Nusra Front. The Islamic
State had nothing to do with 9/11.
So far the Obama administration has
not even attempted to provide a justification for attacking the Islamic
State under international law.
Since the Iraqi government has asked for and approved the US military
actions against IS in Iraq, the problem will be to provide
justification for attacks within Syria where the US refuses even to ask
permission for its proposed bombing attacks. Both the Syrians and
Russians claim any attacks in Syria would violate both international
law with respect to armed conflict and also the UN charter unless
authorized by the Assad government or a UN resolution.
The US answer
appears to be that if and when the US actually carries out military
action in Syria it will come up with the justification then. The moral
appears to be to act first and justify after. Caitlin Hayden explained
to the Daily Beast:“Whenever the United States uses force in foreign
territories, international legal principles, including respect for
sovereignty and the law of armed conflict, impose important constraints
on the ability of the United States to act unilaterally—and on the way
in which the United States can use force. With respect to international
law, the specific basis will depend on the particular facts and
circumstances related to any specific military actions, but we believe
that we will have a basis for taking action.”
In Libya, Obama took great pains to have a UN resolution authorize his
military action under the guise of protecting the lives of citizens.
The actual aim was regime change. With Gadaffi's air force and defenses
destroyed, bombing attacks were used to help rebels defeat Gadaffi's
forces on the ground. In other interventions the policy has been to
violate international law along with any allies willing to go along and
then go to the UN to justify continued occupation as in Iraq and
Afghanistan. For some of the violations in the Afghan invasion see this article.
Even former UN secretary general Kofi Annan explicitly said in September 2004 that the Iraq attacks on Hussein violated international law and the UN charter:
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security
council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview
with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright
if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."He then added
unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN
charter."
In spite of these precedents, Ken Gude, of the Center for American
Progress, a think tank close to the Obama administration that supports
his anti-IS campaign says: “It’s important that the U.S. be seen as
an adherent and supporter of international law and I’m concerned about
the direction this is going. I’m disappointed in the level of supporting
both domestic and international law in this military campaign. It’s
important that the U.S. be seen as an adherent and supporter of
international law and I’m concerned about the direction this is going".
Rather than providing a justification as Gude suggests, US State
Department Spokesperson Marie Harf said in response to Syrian claims
that any US attacks without Syrian permission or a UN resolution would
violate international law:"I find it interesting that Russia’s
suddenly taken an interest in international law, given some of their
past behavior. The President has the authority as Commander-in-Chief
under the United States Constitution to take actions to protect our
people. And any action we take overseas, of course, we will have an
international legal basis for doing so. I don’t have predictions about
what that is, given we haven’t announced additional actions yet.”
This response, would seem to indicate that the administration may
take the tack of claiming the action is required on the grounds that the
Islamic State is an immediate threat to the United States in a place
where the state involved, Syria, is unable or unwilling to take action.
Of course Syria is taking action against the IS and has even said that
it would sanction the military actions of the US against IS if they were
coordinated with the Syrian government. The self-defense argument used
in this case would stretch the meaning of "imminent threat" beyond
reason so as to allow the application of the self-defense justification.
If the US were willing to cooperate with the Assad government there
would be no need to resort to self defense as a justification at all. John Kerry explicitly ruled out such cooperation: No,
we're not going to coordinate with it, Syria. We will certainly want to
deconflict to make certain that they're not about to do something that
they might regret even more seriously. But we're not going to
coordinate. It's not a cooperative effort. We are going to do what they
haven't done, what they had plenty of opportunity to do, which is to
take on ISIL and to degrade it and eliminate it as a threat.
For
some time the Islamic State or ISIS, at it was then, concentrated on
taking territory held by other rebels and so there was not much
confrontation between Assad and ISIS but that has changed for some time
and Assad and ISIS are in constant battle with each other.
The US might try to invoke a right of "collective self defense" and
claim that strikes inside Syria were meant to protect Iraq against the
IS. Syria is not able to control its own territory and prevent attacks
against Iraq by IS from Syria. Any such justification would limit
attacks to defending Iraq and not destroying IS as is Obama's purported
aim. The Obama administration could again stretch the legal limits by
claiming that any punitive action against IS in Syria would be
protecting Iraq.
No doubt the Russians would find this defense interesting. Perhaps, they
could argue that two self-declared pro-Russian Republics were unable to
control their territory in the Ukraine, and hence to protect them they
are going to bomb Ukrainian forces that are trying to take control of
those territories. This is simply an application of the collective right
to self defense.
Ashley Deeks,
a University of Virginia Law Professor, does not think that the
collective self defense justification would be attractive to the Obama
administration: “This theory would limit the scope of action of those
helping the Iraqi government: those providing assistance only could do
so to the extent necessary to quell ISIS in Iraq and ensure that ISIS
was unable to conduct future attacks there. The approach also would be
contingent on Iraq’s consent, which it could withdraw. As a political
matter, it seems doubtful that the United States would find this to be
an appealing approach, particularly if it perceives its own national
interests to be at stake.”
Finally, Obama could claim that IS is part of the continuing war
against al-Qaeda an application of the same type of justification used
under domestic law to the international realm. Apart from the problems
that IS is not part of Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11 it is
not clear how this justification shows US actions comply with
international law.
The US can attempt to pass a UN Security Council resolution justifying
use of force against the Islamic State in Syria. Russia would no doubt
veto such a resolution.
A drone has already been seen over Aleppo in
areas controlled by IS and also over Raqqa the main center in IS
territory in Syria. Unless these drones are Syrian or have permission
from the government to be there, they are violating Syrian air space.
The US justification for action in Syria is long overdue. We know that
the US carried out attacks in Syria some time ago as they attempted to
rescue a US journalist held by IS in Syria. On the appended video, the
new Iraqi prime minister claims that without the consent of the Assad
government bombing attacks on the IS in Syria violate international law.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

The Free Syrian Army(FSA) that the US classifies
as moderate Syrian rebels has announced that it will not join the US
anti-Islamic State coalition.

The head of the western-backed Free Syrian Army,
Colonel Riad Assad, the leader of the FSA also said that his group would
not participate in attacks against the Islamic State. Assad is not
related to the Syrian president Bashar Assad. The Colonel's main objection to
the coalition is that it does not have as its primary goal regime
change to replace president Bashar Assad and his government. Colonel Assad said: "If
they want to see the Free Syrian Army on their side, they should give
assurances on toppling the Assad regime and on a plan including
revolutionary principles."
The statement by the Colonel is in contrast to an earlier statement by the western-backed political group, the Syrian National Coalition associated
with the FSA and recognized by some countries, including many Arab
states, as representing the Syrian people. The group is not recognized
by many rebel groups however as representing them including the Islamic
Front. The Syrian National Council a
sizable group within the Coalition withdrew after the Coalition
attended the Geneva Peace Talks with the Assad government. The Coalition
claimed that it was willing to work with the coalition to fight the
Islamic State.
Earlier, a ceasefire had been announced in Damascus between a rebel
group, the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF) and Islamic State fighters
in the Damascus area. The Islamic State could very well agree not to
target rebel forces in many areas in return for not being attacked
themselves, and launching a coordinated effort against the Assad regime.
Up to now there have been numerous clashes between Islamic State
fighters and other rebels. A ceasefire with other rebels could very well
foil completely the US aim of using rebels as proxy forces to defeat
the Islamic State.
However, there are reports that the SRF agreement had
been breached by the Islamic State. There are other reports of alliances between moderates and radical groups on the Lebanon border.
The situation is certainly confusing with conflicting reports.
The National Coalition
reaffirmed that it would not cooperate with Israel in any fight against
the Islamic State. The group disowned Kamel Lubnani for traveling to
Israel to attend a counter-terrorism conference.
Israel is worried that Assad forces on the Syrian side of the Golan
Heights have lost control to radical rebel groups including the Al-Nusra
front linked to Al Qaeda. Obama's stated intention is to further train
and equip moderate Syrian rebels to attack the Islamic State. The rebels
on the ground in Syria have other views as to what they will do with
their training and weapons.
Even now some of the anti-tank weapons provided
to moderate rebels turned up in the hands of the Islamic State. The FSA
has also experienced defections not only to the larger Islamic Front
but also to Al-Nusra Front and even the Islamic State itself. What is
certain in all of this is that there will be more killing and that arms
manufacturers will see increasing demand for their products. The
complexity of the situation completely eludes some US politicians as is
illustrated by the appended video from the Young Turks.The level of
fearful rhetoric is mind-boggling.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Only a few weeks after the recent truce that ended the Gaza war, Israel
weapons manufacturers are displaying weapons used in the conflict at
their annual Unmanned Systems Conference in Tel Aviv, from Sept. 14th to
19th.

The US Embassy in Tel Aviv is
a co-host of the event. The US Embassy website says that "senior
officials from commercial and government entities" attend from Europe,
Asia, North and South America.
Among sponsors are Elbit Systems,the
largest private Israeli defense contractor. Elbit has over 12,000
employees. Elbit produces the Hermes 450 drone that was probably used
for attacks during the Gaza conflict this summer. There are photos of
the aircraft operating in Gaza. The company website claims that the
Hermes 450 had been fighting terrorism for over a decade and claims that
it is the main platform of the Israeli Defense Forces in
counter-terrorism operations. The drone is described as a "multi-role
tactical high-performance unmanned aircraft system."
The Hermes 450 was one of two drones used by Israel during the 2009
conflict in Gaza. Human Rights Watch estimates that between 48 to 87
Palestinian civilians were killed by drones in that conflict In the
recent conflict 2,130 Palestinians were killed but there has been no
estimate of how many were killed by drone strikes.
Recent share movement of Elbit can be seen here.
Since the conflict started the shares have risen and reached $63.01
after fighting intensified on July 8. The stock is close to its highest
level since 2010 and its price-to-earnings ratio is the highest in five
years. In spite of growth in export sales, company performance is hurt
by the high shekel, which also increases expenses for the firm. William
Scholes of Aberdeen Asset Management points out that Elbit's revenues
are global and increased income from sales in Israel will not impact
global revenue to a great extent. Of six analysts of the stock only one
rated it a buy with the other five recommending a hold.
Competition in
the global military-industrial complex is quite fierce but with renewed
emphasis on the need to fight the Islamic State and increasing
involvement by the US military and those of allies globally, military
budgets may begin to increase once again.
The conflicts in Gaza have not only led to the development of drones
using cutting-edge technology but also night-vision equipment that is
widely exported. This equipment has been field-tested in actual combat
conditions. While the Gaza conflict is estimated to have cost the
Israeli economy several billion dollars and much more to Gaza itself, it
has been a boost to Israel's arms industry according to Barbara Opall-Rome
from the US magazine Defense News. She claims that Israel exported
about $7 billion in military products annually during the last five-year
period. Israel is in the top five of global arms-exporting countries.
However, Israel faces limitations on its arms exports. It does not
want to arm Arab neighbours. The US insists that it not sell to places
such as China and no doubt to Russia. Of course the US is a prime
supplier to Arab Gulf States.

General Saqr Jarrushi, an aide to CIA-linked General Hafter, claimed
that their forces carried out an air strike on the town of Gharyan, 120
kilometers southwest of the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

Militia in the town are associated with the umbrella
group Libya Dawn of mostly Islamist militias that control Tripoli and
the international airport there. The same group had been targeted on
several nights as it wrested control of Tripoli and the international
airport from the Zintan brigades that are allies of Haftar. The rebels
accused the UAE and Egypt of being behind the attacks, as did the US —
at least for a time. Haftar claimed it was a joint operation by his
forces and the international community. The planes involved were not of a
type that are part of the Libyan air force.The Libyan state news agency said that 15 people were wounded in the recent raid directed at a munitions depot. General Haftar began the main conflict with Islamist militias in May and called it Operation Dignity. He
attacked two Islamist bases in Benghazi where he had his headquarters.
His allies, the Zintan brigades, attacked the elected parliament, burned
it, and kidnapped a number of Islamist legislators and officials.
Afterwards they continued to provide security for the Tripoli
international airport. However, after lengthy clashes, they were driven
out by militia from Misrata and are now being bombarded in an area
called Warshefana on
the outskirts of the city. The area is surrounded on all sides by
militia who are bombarding the area and keeping out supplies.Forces loyal to Haftar are
threatening to bomb Benghazi port unless authorities closed it to
prevent arms from coming in for Islamist militia. He is prepared to ruin
the port apparently to prevent it being used to supply the militias.
The new legislators elected in June were to meet originally in
Benghazi as the interim government had passed a law to move it there.
However, before its scheduled meeting, Benghazi was taken over by an
umbrella group of Islamist militias who over-ran military bases run by
Libyan Special Forces who are allies of Haftar, Haftar still controls an
airport on the outskirts from which he still seems able to launch some
bombing attacks locally at least.
It is not clear if he would be able to
launch attacks near Tripoli. He may be protecting some foreign
government that is giving him aid.
The elected legislators finally met in the eastern city of Tobruk.
They are loosely allied with Haftar, although the interim government had
called Operation Dignity an attempted coup and ordered Haftar arrested.
As with many orders of the earlier government the order was never
carried out. Many Islamist groups do not recognize the government in
Tobruk.
The internationally recognized government in Tobruk has lost
control of many ministries. Islamist groups reconvened the General
National Congress and it has appointed a new prime minister.
The head of the UN mission in Libya, Bernardino Leon,
who has been on the job only two weeks, said that only a political
solution could solve the crisis. However, with the Islamist militias in
control of Tripoli and Benghazi and with Haftar resorting to air
bombardments after being defeated on the ground and having the
internationally recognized government in an area under his control, it
seems unlikely that either side is willing to recognize the other as a
legitimate partner to forge a political solution. I would not be
surprised if within a short time the west will suddenly discover that
all the Islamists in Libya are akin to Ansar al-Sharia
and need to be defeated and banned from politics as in Egypt. The
CIA-linked General Haftar will save Libya from Islamists copying the
formula of el-Sisi in Egypt. France is already calling for intervention.

In 2002 a report was issued that gave details of support for the
hijackers behind the 2001 attacks. Twelve years later the pages dealing
with the support still remain classified in spite of many promises to
have them released.

The pages
are part of a US House-Senate Intelligence Committee's Joint Inquiry.
The section classified was on "specific sources of foreign support".
George W. Bush classified the pages for national security reasons. Bush
himself was criticized by many for not declassifying the material.
Critics say that the American public and especially family members of
victims of the attacks deserve to know the contents of the report.
The attack, involved four hijacked airlines. Two crashed into the New
York World Trade Center's Twin Towers. One crashed into the Pentagon,
and a third crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. The attack killed almost
3,000 people.
Attempts to declassify the documents are not new with 46 Senators urging release of the section back in 2003,
an attempt that failed. The pages can actually be read by members of
Congress if given permission from leaders of the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees. Members are accompanied by intelligence
officials who ensure that no notes are taken and those who read the
notes must not release specific details about the report. Stephen Lynch, a congressman who has read the material, said:"I
think the 28 pages are stunning in their clarity in terms of how
demonstrative they are in showing the planning beforehand, the
financing, and the eventual attacks on that day." However, he also
cautioned that questions remained whether individuals "were acting as
part of a government, or acting as rogue agents". Bob Graham,
a former senator, was co-chair of the committee that oversaw the
writing of the document containing the 28 pages in 2002. . Graham has
been asking for years that the White House release the material. He has
also claimed that Saudi Arabia was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Graham accuses Omar al-Bayoumi a Saudi citizen who helped two of the
hijackers find an apartment in San Diego, and also paid their security
deposit and signed their lease, of being a Saudi agent. Those
accusations were rejected by a 9/11 Commission Report in 2004. Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US at the time of 9/11
denies that the Saudi government had any role in the attacks.
There were not just rumors of foreign involvement but of the FBI being involved. This article reports that an FBI informant had rented a room to two hijackers. Specifically,
investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an
FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000
and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI
refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a
high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken
under orders from the White House.
Another link to Saudi Arabia involved the house of the father of a
Saudi millionaire Abdullaz al-Hiji in Sarasota Florida. The al-Hijii's
moved out of their house abruptly and left the country abruptly just
weeks before the 9/11 attacks: "..leaving behind three luxury cars, and
personal belongings including clothing, furniture, and fresh food. They
also left the swimming pool water circulating." An FBI investigation
found no connection of the family to the attacks.
However, Bob Graham begs to differ: Graham
says he recently gained access to two secret documents regarding the
FBI’s investigation of al-Hijji’s family, and says one of the documents
“completely contradicts” the bureau’s public statements that there was
no connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the al-Hijjis.
However, Graham said he could not provide further details because the documents were classified.
As the appended video indicates Obama promised 9/11 families that he
would declassify the pages. He has not kept his promise and the White
House has not even bothered to answer recent letters from the 9/11
family group.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Back in April of this year after the February
uprising against president Yanukovych in the Ukraine, the IMF approved a
loan of $17 billion to the new Ukrainian government.

The $17 billion is eight times the normal quota.
Usually a country will be able at most to borrow just twice its annual
quota. However, the Ukraine loan is four times even that amount,
indicating that the IMF was very anxious to grant the loan even though
past loans have not worked out well, as when a loan was made previously in 2012: The
Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund has decided that
Ukraine is expected to engage in post-program monitoring1 with the Fund,
following the expiration on December 27, 2012 of the 29-month Stand-By
Arrangement (SBA) with exceptional access (SDR 10 billion; US$ 15.2
billion; 729 percent of quota). The program went off-track with only two
purchases made in the total amount of SDR 2.25 billion (about US$ 3.4
billion). As of June 30, 2013 Ukraine’s outstanding credit to the Fund
was SDR 5.27 billion (about US$ 8 billion; 383.8 percent of quota). The
Board's decision was adopted on a lapse-of-time basis2 on Friday, July
26.
Given that the new loan is even larger and more out of line with
normal practice, this indicates how anxious the IMF is to tie Ukraine
into western international financial institutions. On August 29 the IMF
signed off on the loan.
The IMF
signed off on the loan even though Ukraine was in effect fighting a
civil war, was suffering from capital flights, and their balance of
payments was in a state of collapse.This article suggests
the loan supported Ukrainian currency long enough for Ukrainian
oligarchs to move their accounts to hard currency accounts in the west.
The war in the east is further damaging an already faltering economy
destroying basic infrastructure for power generation, water, and even
hospitals. Many citizens are internally displaced or fled to Russia. Yet
an IMF press release praised the Ukrainian government: “The IMF
praised the government’s commitment to economic reforms despite the
ongoing conflict.” John Helmer
has calculated that of the $3.2 billion disbursed by the IMF at
beginning of May this year, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the
middle of last month. It appears that the financial situation is
worsening and that another $5 billion may be needed over above the IMF
loan of $17 billion.
President Poroshenko one of the oligarchs may be threatened from the right by another oligarch, Igor Kolomysky,
who has his own private militia. Given that Poroshenko has not yet been
able to defeat the separatists and economic austerity measures demanded
by the IMF will decrease his political popularity, it is possible that
there could be another coup by forces even more to the right and
nationalist.
Ukraine's debt is not dominated in Ukrainian currency but dollars and
euros. With Ukrainian currency falling in value the Ukraine needs to
gain dollars and euros to finance its debt. To do this, Ukraine will
need to sell off its resources to western interests, often at fire sale
prices, and in return it will receive the dollars and euros it will need
to finance its debt.
There are clear links to the US at this stage.
Senate Bill 2277 directs the US Agency for International
Development(USAID) to guarantee loans for the development of oil and gas
in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. There are links to the Obama
administration as well in all of this. Vice-president Joe Biden's son
recently was appointed to the board of Burisma a Ukrainian company although it is registered in Cyprus. The Ukrainian government has even helped using its military: “Ukrainian
troopers help installing shale gas production equipment near the east
Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which they bombed and shelled for the three
preceding months, the Novorossiya news agency reports on its website
citing local residents. Civilians protected by Ukrainian army are
getting ready to install drilling rigs. More equipment is being brought
in, they said, adding that the military are encircling the future
extraction area.” Kolomoysky is reported to a major investor in
Burisma. He was appointed by the Ukrainian government to be governor of
Dnipropetrovsk a south-central province. In the Eastern Ukraine there
had been opposition to fracking even before the Maidan demonstrations.
There is pressure from the IMF and World Bank for Ukraine to
deregulate its agriculture.The Investment Finance Corporation of the
World Bank has advised Ukraine "to delete provisions regarding mandatory
certification of food in the listed laws of Ukraine and Government
Decree," and also "to avoid unnecessary costs for businesses" by
regulations on pesticides and food additives.
As part of its efforts to punish Russia for thwarting plans to orient
the Ukraine more towards the west and to reliance on western funding,
there are various plans afoot
to ensure that the IMF loans to do not for the most part go towards
paying off the huge debt that the Ukraine owes Russia. Anna Gelpem.
a former UK Treasury official wants a $3 billion bond negotiated by
Russia's sovereign wealth fund to be declared by law foreign aid rather
than a commercial loan. She said: “The United Kingdom can refuse to
enforce English-law contracts for the money Russia lent,” thereby taking
“away creditor remedies for default on this debt.”Gelpem suggests an even more extensive repudiation of debt: Ukraine
may claim that its debt to Russia is “odious.” This applies to
situations where “an evil ruler signs contracts that burden future
generations long after the ruler is deposed.” She adds that “Repudiating
all debts incurred under Yanukovich would discourage lending to corrupt
leaders.”
Gelpem suggests that it be a universal principle that contracts
that are "used to advance military and political objectives..should lose
their claim to court enforcement". This should mean then that the IMF
loan to the Ukraine need not be paid off. That would help out the
Ukraine most of all. As the appended video shows the IMF loan comes with
many unpopular provisions.

The United States and Vietnam will resume adoptions, ending a six-year
ban. The ban was imposed after reports of babies being sold and some
children offered without parental consent.

The new system will
allow Americans to adopt children who have special needs or are over
five years old. The adoptions will begin again after the Vietnam decides
which US adoption service groups will be authorized to represent
parents in the US. Nguyen Van Binh, director
of the adoption agency at the Vietnamese Justice Ministry said that two
agencies would be issued licenses next week.
The US government also announced the renewal of adoptions: Beginning
September 16, 2014, USCIS will accept and adjudicate Form I-800
petitions filed on behalf of children from Vietnam who meet the specific
criteria of a Special Adoption Program under the Hague Convention on
Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention or Convention). The
announcement said that Vietnam has taken a number of steps since 2012 to
improve its implementation of the Hague Convention, particularly with
respect to adoption of children with special needs and older children.
The US government statement went on to say that the US Department of
State could now issue Hague Adoption Certificates on a case-by-case
basis.
Before the ban in 2008, Vietnam was popular as a source of
children for adoption.
The allegations that led to the ban on adoptions from Vietnam were
confirmed by a UN report in 2009. It found that cash payments were made
by adoption agencies to orphanages. This led to orphanages seeking out
children to be adopted without proper checks on family circumstances or
their background. The resumption of these limited types of adoptions may
be a prelude to allowing all adoptions according to a delegation of US
senators who visited Vietnam last year.Russia has
banned adoptions by Americans since January 1, 2013. The most popular
country for US adoptions were China, Ethiopia, and then Russia at the
time of the ban. Supporters of the Russian bill claimed that some US
adoptive parents had been abusive, and that there had been 19 deaths of
adopted Russian children since the 1990's. The Russian law might have
been partly in retaliation for the US passage of the Magnitsky Act.
However, there was also a very negative reaction in Russia to a case where a seven-year-old adopted by an American nurse was sent back to Russia with a note saying that she no longer wanted him: Little
Artem Saveliev was last year taken from a grim orphanage and given a
new life in Tennessee last year. But his adoptive mother Torry-Ann
Hansen, a 34-year-old nurse, yesterday put him on a ten-hour flight as
an unaccompanied minor with a note 'to whom it may concern' saying: 'I
no longer wish to parent this child'. Given the present tense relations between Russia and the US, adoptions from Russia may not resume soon.
The ban halted pending adoption of 259 Russian children to about 230 US families. A year after the ban many of the families were
looking to adopt elsewhere but some were still hoping the ban would be
lifted. Many of the families had already traveled to Russia and bonded
with the children they were to adopt.

In Obama's recent announcement of the expansion of
attacks against the Islamic State in Iraq and also into Syria, he also
spoke of the need for vigilance in northern Africa.

Obama
may also be turning his sights on a possible intervention in Libya
which is more and more described in the media as a failed state. Ever
since the CIA-linked General Khalifa Haftar began his Operation Dignity against
Islamist militias and had his allies the Zintan Brigades attack and
burn parliament while kidnapping some Islamist lawmakers and officials,
there have been counter-attacks by umbrella groups of mostly Islamist
militias who now control Tripoli and also most of Benghazi.
Obama could
argue that the success of Islamist militias could lead to a safe haven for
radical Islamist groups. Some radical groups are already associated
with Islamist militia umbrella groups, especially in Benghazi, including
Ansar al Sharia, the group accused of the attack on the US embassy in
Benghazi. The US along with allies could intervene to support the
government in Tobruk and indirectly Haftar.France is already pushing for intervention.
There has already been intervention in the form of several night attacks
by mystery planes directed against Islamist targets in Tripoli. They
failed to stop the ultimate takeover of the city by the militias. The
rebels accused the UAE and Egypt of being behind the attacks. Haftar
himself called the attacks a joint project with the international
community. Later, the US also accused the UAE and Egypt of being behind
the attacks and claimed to have known nothing about the attacks before
they happened. This seems quite unlikely. More likely, the US might have
even approved even if tacitly. Later still, the US withdrew its
accusations against the UAE and Egypt suggesting that the US cannot
decide what story it should tell.
The government elected in June has been meeting in the far eastern
city of Tobruk and is loosely allied with Haftar. The interim government
had scheduled a meeting of the group in Benghazi where parliament had
been moved but the security situation prevented it.
In a recent interview, Obama suggested for Libya the sort of nation
building and long term commitment which was part of the US occupation of
Iraq and Afghanistan neither of which have been very successful so far
but cost the US huge sums and many casualties.Obama said: "I
think we [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in
full force if you’re going to do this. Then it’s the day after Ghadafi
is gone, when everybody is feeling good and everybody is holding up
posters saying, ‘Thank you, America. At that moment, there has to be a
much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn’t have any
civic traditions."
In neighboring Egypt, the president el-Sisi is waging an all-out
battle against any Islamists who oppose his government especially the
Muslim Brotherhood which until it was overthrown ran the first elected
government. El-Sisi designates these Islamists as terrorists. Obama
could very well decide to describe the Islamist militias in Libya as
terrorists and intervene as part of his global war on terror. Obama said:
"As Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead from Europe to
Asia—from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle
East—we stand for justice, for dignity, Abroad, American leadership is
the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the
capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists.” In
his recent speech Obama emphasized that the greatest threats at present
come from the Middle East and North Africa where he claims radical
groups are exploiting grievances for their own game.
General Haftar could very well play a key role in helping Obama
rebuild Libya in any attempt to create a Libya more to the liking of the
west and western corporations eager to further the exploitation of
Libya's vast oil resources.
One suggestion by Barak Barfi is as follows:"Washington
and its partners should persuade the new Libyan government to appoint
Haftar as chief of staff. Respected by his troops, he has the military
skills and combat experience necessary to create a modern army. But most
important, he is the sole Libyan willing to take on the Islamist
militias that are preventing the establishment of a modern state"
The Tobruk-based government has dismissed 7 ambassadors loyal to the GNC-formed government in Tripoli.